Years ago, a 401(k) recordkeeper wholesaler came by to visit our office (for the first time), and as I usually attempt to do, I worked hard to make "get to know you" conversation. It's important to note that every recordkeeper wholesaler that I've met (so far) is male, and I'm not really sure why that is. From there, somehow, the dialogue turned towards marriage / divorce, and I believe that pivot took root from a comment I made relative to a Third Party Administrator rep who'd recently announced the end of his marriage. Out of implied mutual concern, I'd wondered perhaps if this wholesaler might have known this TPA friend of mine, but from what I can recall of his reaction, he did not.
Therefore, I went on to detail my surprise at hearing of my friend's pending divorce, but especially from the standpoint that the man's wife was a noted, locally recognized sex therapist. Not that I - across the board - assume that 401(k) TPAs and sex therapist aren't ever to have marital issues, but "they seemed so happy", at least according to what I'd witnessed secondhand (hearsay).
From there, the wholesaler made a comment that really unsettled me.
Essentially, he stated that wives must at times act like a skank in order to please their husbands / keep their marriages on solid ground.
Now, in looking back on this conversation, I'm not so sure I'd ever heard that word. Skank. Nevertheless, I knew what the word meant, and when I heard him annunciate it, I remember wanting to unhear it because it didn't sit well with me in the least.
-------------------------
Wives not adequately servicing their husbands in bed - out of duty to them - and thereby "disrespecting" these men, by "forcing them to find sexual relief elsewhere" is so not in line with my understanding of marriage, but I've heard this rationale before from prominent Christian pastors / counselors. And there's a part of me that's wondered if my stance regarding this might be due to my same sex attraction, but having taking the time to look at my own marriage, which has been rooted in scripture from the beginning (though by no means perfectly), I don't buy into this notion that wives are tasked by God to be some version of a matrimonial sexbot.
The absolute clarifier for me regarding this is fornication. This is the sexual relationship prior to marriage that's forbidden by God, but today is the norm. Men and women live together sans ever marrying and are perfectly content with this arrangement.
Why?
I believe expectations relative to themselves and their romantic partners have a lot to do it (& not just regarding performance in bed), and thereby the control implied within the "shack up" arrangement simply makes sense to them. Conversely, with moral standards thrown out the window, all bets could be off regarding ever maintaining the faithfulness implied within the pretend marriage. Hence, there's flexibility there to cheat without really cheating since everything was agreed upon on a napkin.
Marriage is first and foremost about faith in God and trust in both yourself and each other, and that's a big, big deal that many no longer see a use for. Besides the legal contract itself, those things alone are enough to keep many lovers from taking the plunge, but especially so if enjoyable, non-procreation sex before marriage is readily available.
What marriage isn't is a test of wills or some version of performance art. No, that falls back into the fornication camp that we discussed earlier.
-------------------------
What all this boils down to within my mind is the following: Women / wives are absolutely not equal to men / husbands relative to the sexual aspects of a marriage or any romantic relationship for that matter. And no, even taking all the available prophylactics available nowadays into consideration, giving women a sense of complete control over their reproductive cycle, this still doesn't even things up for me. There simply ain't no truth in the sexual revolution, baby, and there never has been.
-------------------------
One additional anecdote here, and I'll work to wrap this post up.
A vaccine for children was released years ago that immunizes them from HPV. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease that's transmitted during sex via genital warts that occur on the infected's skin. These warts can vary in size and shape along with quantity, therefore taking note of them early on isn't always a viable given for those infected. Females who contract HPV are at higher risk for developing cervical cancer later in life, therefore it behooves them to avoid HPV at all cost.
I was curious as to what a male doctor friend (who is also a father of teenage daughters) had in mind relative to vaccinating his own with this medical preventative. His response was as follows: If my daughters will only keep to their faithfulness to God, they'll be no need to worry about them contracting HPV.
It was an earnest answer, but it left out the reality of how some women - even Christian women - become infected by the virus. That being, by men, who are at times their husbands, who've no clue that they've been infected via their promiscuous lovemaking. Again, to me, this callousness points back to this cattywompus notion that women / girls are in no way vulnerable / at risk here to man's stupidity, and I simply don't buy that.
-------------------------
I have been convicted more and more as of late as a man / husband relative to the sexual influence I have / have had over women who I come in contact with / have come in contact with throughout the week / throughout my life. Now, hear me out here. I'm not referring to myself as some sort of on-the-prowl super stud. I know there are men who fall into that camp. I've met them and have even been in their midst enough to know personally of the massive damage they entail via their constant sexual shenanigans.
For me, I'm referring to primarily a lookback relative to my teenage years forward, taking into consideration exactly what romantic opportunities were put in front of me and how I chose to respond to those. And yes, I know that sounds chauvinistic - as if it's all one sided (me versus sexbots?). But I'm convinced that had my mind been more open to what sexual influence I actually wielded back then (high school / college days), a few females would have clearly been taken advantage of by none other than me. How exactly they would have responded to those advances is a moot point here not only historically but morally as well (refer back to my diatribe on fornication if need be).
So many men / boys are keenly aware of their sexual influence on / over the opposite sex. That was not and still isn't me. It's like it was hard-wired into their psyches. And I would take that a step farther by arguing that many often use that "know-how" to their advantage whilst satiating their libidos and leaving plenty of emotional / relational damage in their wake.
In closing, I've been recently convicted of God's protective handiwork regarding my personal noninfluence over the teenage girls I gravitated towards platonically in high school. Thanks be to God for this.
No comments:
Post a Comment